Retrieves the execution trace for an insight, showing every tool and model call with timing, cost, and review findings so you can see how it was produced.
How an insight was produced: every tool call and model call with timing, cost and review findings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| insight_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does useful work by disclosing the returned payload (tool calls, model calls, timing, cost, review findings), from which an agent infers this is a read-only, non-destructive lookup. It does not state what happens if the insight_id is unknown, whether traces can be partial or truncated, or any permission requirement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that defines the resource in the first clause and then enumerates its contents. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the most important information leads.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one required parameter) and an output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required. However, with no annotations at all and no parameter documentation in the schema, the description should say more about the ID's origin and read-only/error behavior. It is adequate but leaves the single input under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the input schema gives no title or description for insight_id. The description only indirectly implies the parameter by saying 'How an insight was produced,' and never says what an insight_id looks like, where to obtain one, or whether the ID must come from analyze_news. For a zero-coverage schema this leaves a real gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the resource concretely (the provenance of an insight) and enumerates the contents of the trace: 'every tool call and model call with timing, cost and review findings.' An agent can tell this is a provenance/audit retrieval tool. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name or contrast any sibling, but the siblings listed (news_feed, list_events, get_profile, analyze_news) are distant enough that confusion is unlikely.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is given, and no alternative is named. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'How an insight was produced' — i.e. call this to explain or audit an existing insight. An agent must infer that this is an after-the-fact explainability call rather than a discovery call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.